Speedy deletion of "Downward causality"
A page you created, Downward causality, has been tagged for deletion in accordance with our deletion policy. In particular, it meets one or more criteria for speedy deletion; the relevant criterion is:
- Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content.
You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.
Articles for deletion nomination of Criticisms of Science
I have nominated Criticisms of Science, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticisms of Science. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Feyerabend and anarchism
Greetings, PoS. I am afraid I have had to revert your edits associating Paul Feyerabend and his ideas with the political philosophy of anarchism. Feyerabend was not an anarchist, and his philosophy of science did not advance anarchist political philosophy (he advocated democratic control of science). He used "anarchism" as part of the name of his epistemology as an intentionally provocative analogy, not meant to be taken at face value. Best, Skomorokh 16:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The discussion of the merge for this article has restarted again after a posting on the helpdesk, I wanted to see what your thoughts are and if they have changes since your last post on this issue considering both pages have undergone revisions since you voiced your opinions. Please check it out and post any changes over here. Thanks. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Greetings - I wish to move the page you created on Criticism of Science out of the Anti-Intellectual class, or at least discuss it. One of the points made in the talk section is the comparison of science to divination. Is it your purpose to make this type of judgement about science? If not, wouldn't it be better to edit this out of the article.TDurden1937 (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)TDurden1937
- That particular quote was from an article I didn't place there. It was there when I stumbled upon "criticisms of science" when it was still only a brief section of the science article. I read the paper it sourced, and I wouldn't say the author was making much of a judgment either, it was merely a comparison. I don't think there was any intention of having the comparison reflect negatively on science in that we should toss it out because its 'just divination', but that it is one form of divining knowledge among many, therefore we should keep our minds open.(ProductofSociety (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC))
- I just recently reviewed Criticism of Science and it appears improved. I think this is an important page and like your idea of expanding it with a history of science. If you like leave a message for me on my talk page or I can give you my email address somehow.--TDurden1937 (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- The link "Blinded By Science, How 'Balanced' Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality" does not work properly. I was going to change it but was afraid I'd mess it up. Discovery Magazine have a reproduction of the article. I found it through a Google.